Where are all the female participants?
Where Are All the Female Participants?
Or: Why Psychology Sometimes Feels Like a Boys’ Club
If you’ve ever studied a classic psychology experiment and thought, “Wait, where are the women?” — you’re not imagining it. From Milgram’s obedience study to Zimbardo’s prison simulation and Asch’s conformity experiments, early psychology has a bit of a gender representation problem.
Let’s take a closer look.
The Missing Half of the Population
Many foundational studies in psychology relied heavily , sometimes exclusively, on male participants, particularly white, middle-class, American men. Why? Convenience, mostly. University researchers often used male college students as participants (known as "WEIRD" samples – Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic). But convenience doesn’t equal good science.
This creates a serious problem: gender bias. If a study only includes men, can we really generalise the results to women? Probably not. And yet, many theories based on these studies were assumed to apply universally.
Alpha and Beta Bias – Let’s Define the Terms
Psychologists describe two types of gender bias:
Alpha bias: When differences between genders are exaggerated. For example, Freud claimed women experience “penis envy” and have weaker superegos. Yikes.
Beta bias: When differences are minimised or ignored, often by studying men and applying the findings to women too. This is where most classic research falls.
Milgram’s (1963) obedience study? 40 male participants.
Asch’s (1951) conformity study? All male.
Zimbardo’s (1971) prison experiment? Yep, just men.
Now imagine if the roles were reversed — how different might the findings have been?
Why It Matters
Gender bias in research doesn’t just impact theory — it affects how we understand behaviour in the real world. It can reinforce stereotypes, ignore female experiences, and create androcentric (male-centred) psychology.
For example, early research into stress responses focused on the “fight or flight” model — based mostly on male animals. But Taylor et al. (2000) proposed that women may have a different response: “tend and befriend”, based on different hormonal reactions like oxytocin. This highlights how vital it is to study both genders.
Is Psychology Getting Better?
Definitely. Today, ethical standards require diverse samples and more representative data. There’s a growing awareness of gender, culture, and intersectionality in research. Feminist psychology, led by figures like Carol Gilligan, has pushed back against male-centric theories, offering more nuanced insights into female experience.
But the legacy of early gender bias still shapes how psychology is taught and understood,, which is why it’s so important to question who’s in the sample, and who’s left out.
Takeaway for A-Level Students:
Next time you're evaluating a study, ask: “Whose experience is this based on?” If it’s a boys-only club, don’t be afraid to call it out — it might just earn you AO3 marks and help psychology grow up a little.